The Rational Fool: June 2009

essays

Unnatural in India

An unnamed government source from India's Home Ministry under Mr. P. Chidambaram has dismissed Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, which criminalizes homosexuality as against "the order of nature", as "an absurdity in today's world". I have no doubt that it is, and I am in good company: Amartya Sen, Vikram Seth, Shyam Benegal, Shubha Mudgal... A meeting of Mr. Chidambaram, the Health Minister Ghulam Nabi Azad and the Law Minister Veerappa Moily, was expected to be held soon to discuss the law. It's a step forward from the uncompromising opposition to repeal the law by the erstwhile Home Minister, Shivraj Patil. The LGBT community in India cheered. Within hours of the reported consensus between the Home and the Law Ministries on repealing Section 377, however, Mr. Moily, took two steps back:

. "I have never said it will be repealed--the statement has been misinterpreted. As far as Section 377 of IPC is concerned I have said I have not examined it yet," said Law Minister Veerappa Moily on Monday. "There is no question of one individual minister voicing his view this way or that way," said Moily...

"The Cabinet has a mandate to have a re-look at the provision. But we are not going to rush to any conclusion. We will certainly take into account concerns of all sections, including religious groups like Christian church," Moily had said on Sunday.

What could Mr. Moily possibly expect from the religious groups? [Warning: Sexually explicit material below the fold]

"The Church's stand on the issue has always been clear. For us it is an unnatural act, against the divine law. We will definitely oppose it," said Joseph Dias, general secretary of the Catholic Secular Forum.

Okay, for you and your fellow Catholics [btw, isn't the name Catholic Secular Forum an oxymoron?], homosexuality may be unnatural and against "the divine law". Rest assured, no one is holding a gun to your head to commit sodomy. I don't care much for your fictitious divinity, though. What right do you have to impose your rules on me?

Unnatural, eh? Here are some fun details from Olivia Judson's Dr. Tatiana's Sex Advice to All Creation:

Look at bonobo, a sensual creature also known as the pygmy chimpanzee (which is odd, as it's no smaller than the regular chimpanzee). Bonobos like sex, and female bonobos like sex with each other. One lies on her back, another climbs on top, and they rub their genitalia.

Among Adélie penguins, one of the smaller penguins in Antarctica, the males, like most birds, have no penis. But that doesn't stop a bit of gay jiggery-pokery. In one recorded incident two males bowed to each other as they would to a female, then one lay down on his front, raised his bill and tail as any coquettish girl penguin, and the other copulated with him, ejaculating into his genital track. They then swapped roles.

Or look at dolphins. The bottle-nosed dolphin is catholic in its choice of sex partners. Males are frequently sighted copulating with turtles (they insert their penises into the soft tissues at the back of their victim's shell), with sharks, and even with eels... The Amazon River dolphin or boto, sometimes goes further, penetrating another dolphin's blowhole.

Well, need I to go on? How about macaques, baboons, razorbills, octopuses, fruit flies ... Oh come on, you've got no idea how rich and varied sexual conduct in nature is!

Joining with Mr. Diaz is the Vishwa Hindu Parishad, whose spokesperson, Vinod Bansal declared,

"It is against the culture and family system in India. It will result in spread of a number of diseases."

Mr. Bansal, which culture are you referring to? The one depicted in this sculpture from Khajuraho, perhaps? Spread of diseases? Yeah, right, if Section 377 were repealed, there is a grave danger that India will climb further above its top ranking in the incidence of Tuberculosis, accounting already for 21% of all cases worldwide. If those gay truck drivers from Delhi and Kolkata were free to do what they want with each other, won't Chlamydia in pregnant women attending secondary care in India jump from 17% to 25%? Perhaps, Mr. Bansal is afraid that India's rank — 135 out of 191 — on healthy life expectancy will slip further away from that of Guatamala, Maldives, Mongolia, and Bolivia?

Muslim leaders, as to be expected, are also against the repeal. Islam is dead against homosexuality, literally — Iran, Mauritania, Saudi-Arabia, Sudan, United Arab Emirates, Yemen, and Nigeria (in 12 Northern provinces with Sharia law) impose death penalty for same-sex acts. Fatwa 371/B issued by India's Darul Uloom Deoband says, I quote:

Undoubtedly, sodomy (homosexuality) is haram and forbidden in Islam. Because of this sin, the nation of Hazrat Lut (Alaihis Salam) was punished by Allah in this world. There is no fixed punishment for perpetrator of this crime, but according to Imam Abu Hanifa such person should be pushed from a mountain to death. But, this punishment will be implemented by a Qazi. In our country there is neither an Islamic government nor an Islamic Qazi [tsk, tsk, how sad] ; therefore he should repent sincerely to Allah and ask for his forgiveness, and should never return to this act. [emphasis mine]

In consonance with this fatwa, Maulana Abdul Khalik Madrasi, deputy vice chancellor of the Darul Uloom Deoband, has asked the government not to repeal Section 377. Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind, a prominent Muslim organization, chimed in, "the repeal of the section would create 'sexual anarchy' in the society". Yup, "sexual anarchy", and not Islamic terrorism or global economic crisis, is the greatest threat facing India today!

What may be expected from other conservative sections of the society? A spokesperson for the main opposition party of India, the Bharathiya Janata Party, Mukhtar Abbas Naqvi, cautioned the government not to change the law in a hurry:

"We are living in India, not in an European country. These issues are very important and sensitive. A thorough discussion is needed on this issue."

Section 377 was written into Indian Law in 1860 by a European country, Victorian England, for crying out loud! Little can be said for homophobia in India before the British and the Muslim rule. Besides, why the country of residence should have any impact on the basic rights of a human being is beyond me. Aren't gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgenders human beings?

What right does anyone have to interfere with the private, consensual, sexual conduct of others? What concern is it of the religious groups like the Christian Church, the Hindu Matts, or the Muslim Ummah, and why should it be taken into account in repealing a law that they had favored and foisted on the people? That Chandra and Bobby or Ennis and Jack love each other deeply, and wish to share their joys and sorrows for life, does not blow up these religious edifices into smithereens, does it? Not that the government has the backbone to legalize drugs, but suppose it does, will it make any sense to consult the Mafia?

It is neither too late nor is it inconsequential for you to sign this open letter to the Government of India, Members of the Judiciary, and all Citizens to repeal Section 377. Please, sign the letter and make your voice heard above the cacophony from the religious fundamentalists. Thanks.

Update: Gay Ho!

opinion

Woman, unveil thyself!

Unlike his pandering cohort from across the pond, the French President, Nicolas Sarkozy, has the guts to declare a war on burka. Rejecting the waffling and the euphemisms of the apologists, he has mustered the courage to call a burka a burka. An anachronism that is nothing but a manifestation of the reprehensible and misogynistic idea in Islam that the exposure of even an inch of a woman's skin is fraught with danger. Danger to the ogling men, who will be forced to neglect their duty to bomb the hell out of the infidels and themselves. Instead of the heavenly embrace of the virgins that allah has guaranteed for them, they will be eternally damned by their frenzies of lust for the temptress. What could be worse than that, eh?

President Sarkozy, in his address to the French Parliament, declared to the applauding MPs and Senators:

"The problem of the burka is not a religious problem, it's a problem of liberty and women's dignity. It's not a religious symbol, but a sign of subservience and debasement. I want to say solemnly, the burka is not welcome in France. In our country, we can't accept women prisoners behind a screen, cut off from all social life, deprived of all identity. That's not our idea of freedom."

The applause was well deserved, but Sarkozy went on:

"We must not fight the wrong battle. In the republic, the Muslim religion must be respected as much as other religions."

Now, Sarkozy is obviously attempting to regain his balance on the political tight rope, as he deflects the battle away from Islam.

What are we battling against, if not the idea that woman is inferior to man, that woman must be subservient to man, that woman must not have the right to choose freely? And, where exactly are these strictures pronounced, the strictures that have eternal validity, that are the words of god, and therefore beyond challenge? If these are not in Islam, in the Koran, or the Hadiths, then why are they the law in most Islamic countries?

President Sarkozy is not quite there yet, but it must be granted that he's far more credible than President Obama, who asserted this recently in his speech in Cairo:

"The U.S. government has gone to court to protect the right of women and girls to wear the hijab, and to punish those who would deny it... I reject the view of some in the West that a woman who chooses to cover her hair is somehow less equal..."

I wish President Sarkozy had given his speech before President Obama gave his. No, the West (and, for that matter, much of the East, the North, and the South that is not under the crescent moon) does not view the woman who chooses not but feels compelled to wear the burka, the hijab, or whatever, as unequal. The idea of compulsory wear for women to protect the men from themselves, however, is quite different. That certainly is not equal — not even close — to the idea of liberty and equality.

humor

President Obama's Cairo Speech

No surprises in President Obama's speech in Cairo. I am disappointed that he repeated his assertion about the USA not being at war with Islam, although he followed it up this time with a vow to fight terrorism relentlessly. As if terrorism is the only problem with Islam!

Islam, as expected, received much praise from this man who is unafraid of acknowledging his roots in that religion. What irked me was the association of this religion with the accomplishments of the people of that region. Algebra and astronomy have as much to do with Islam, if any, as Heisenberg's uncertainty principle or Schrödinger's Cat has to do with Nazism. Would President Obama attribute Christiaan Barnad's contributions to cardiac surgery to Apartheid? What has Nazism to do with Richard Stauss's Arabella and Friedenstag? Why then credit Islam with Kahlil Gibran's or Kazi Nazrul Islam's poetry? For more on this, please read my post: God, King, and Science.

essays

The War with Islam

President Barack Obama will be delivering a major speech in Cairo this week. In his speech, he is expected to reach out to what he calls the Muslim world, to dispel misapprehensions about America, and to promise respect and understanding from what he does not consider as a Christian nation. The inconsistency in the nomenclature apart, I have no problem with his targeting a specific religious group for outreach. After all, speech, dialogue, and debate are the hallmarks of civilization in addressing conflicts, not beheading, bomb, and acid attacks on young girls who refuse to be submissive. I hope, though, he doesn't repeat the incredible declaration that he made when addressing the Turkish Parliament last month:

I know there have been difficulties these last few years. I know that the trust that binds the United States and Turkey has been strained, and I know that strain is shared in many places where the Muslim faith is practiced. So let me say this as clearly as I can: The United States is not, and will never be, at war with Islam. [emphasis mine]

I beg to disagree, Mr. President. The United States is at war with Islam. To be more precise, the humanity is at war with Islam. It cannot afford not to be.

I am not talking about the battles that are fought between Muslims and non-Muslims across the world. In Afghanistan, Chechnya, Gaza, Indonesia, Kashmir, Philippines, Thailand... Not the battles in which silent drones drop bombs on unsuspecting women and children who have no option but to submit to Islam. Not the ones in which commuters in trains, guests in hotels, and office goers in high-rise building are blown to smithereens with the push of a button. These battles may end when dictators are overthrown, when borders between nations are redrawn, or when a new member or two are admitted into the United Nations.

I am talking about a deeper war, a war that is waged in the classrooms, the courts, and the town halls in civil societies. Not with weapons of mass destruction, but with books, blogs, microphones, and cameras. A war on ideas that are antiquated and plain wrong. For, that's what Islam is. A collection of ideas, espoused and codified by a man who lived and died eons ago.

Islam is a system of beliefs and values that it declares as eternal and beyond challenge. It lays down prescriptions and proscriptions that seek to control every thought and deed of every human being. It provides for cruel and unusual punishment for even minor transgressions and deviations from the code of conduct it had laid down centuries ago. It promises death to anyone who dares to criticize or renounce these ideas. Ayaan Hirsi Ali wrote:

By declaring our Prophet infallible and not permitting ourselves to question him, we Muslims had set up static tyranny. The Prophet Muhammad attempted to legislate every aspect of life. By adhering to his rules of what is permitted and what is forbidden, we Muslims suppressed freedom to think for ourselves and to act as we chose. We froze the moral outlook of billions of people into the mindset of the Arab desert in the seventh century. We were not just servants of Allah, we were slaves.
— Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Infidel, New York: Free Press, 2007, pp:271-272.

Worse, Islam seeks to divide the world — into believers and non-believers, monotheists and polytheists, idolaters and non-idolaters, men and women, pure and impure — and discriminates against those whom it considers as less than human. The religion imposes a hierarchy of rights and obligations on everyone who voluntarily or involuntarily submits to its rule. Not unlike Apartheid and Nazism. Would you have forsworn war on these hateful ideologies, too, Mr. President?

Admittedly, few religions, if any, can escape blame for being divisive and oppressive. Just a couple of days ago, here in this bastion of liberty and equality, a mad man decided to murder a doctor who dared to respect a woman's right to choose. Caste continues to be the bane of Hinduism in India, often resulting in tragic deaths of young men and women who dared to love across the religious barriers.

There is an important difference, though. There is no Hindu Republic where the Laws of Manu are the laws of the land. As President Obama had correctly observed during his recent visit to Turkey, we are not a Christian nation, and the Bible is not the law here. There is no Organization of Buddhist Cultures, nor is there an Organization of Christian Countries, but there is an Organization of Islamic Conference, and it's not merely a Happy Friday get-together either.

The Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam [1990] is a declaration of the member states of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, that institutionalizes the blatantly discriminatory and oppressive laws of Sharia. Today, the so-called United Nations Human Rights Council seeks to extend this slavery to Islam to every nation on this earth, by making free speech subject to Koranic injunctions. Thomas Jefferson wrote in his Notes on the state of Virginia:

The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg ... Reason and free inquiry are the only effectual agents against error... It is errors alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself.

More than a year ago, in Philadelphia, a first-time Senator aspiring to become the next President of the United States of America had declared:

And yet words on a parchment [the Constitution of the United States of America] would not be enough to deliver slaves from bondage, or provide men and women of every color and creed their full rights and obligations as citizens of the United States. What would be needed were Americans in successive generations who were willing to do their part - through protests and struggle, on the streets and in the courts, through a civil war and civil disobedience and always at great risk - to narrow that gap between the promise of our ideals and the reality of their time.

In short, Senator Obama had lauded the struggle — and even war — to eradicate slavery here. Why the change of heart now? Why extend unilateral peace and endorse the slavery of Islam, President Obama?

An update here